The 1st
pāda, on a gross level, seems to negate the application of, for
example, nuclear science to the building of weapons of mass
destruction – “he did not seek knowledge for the suffering of
others.” On a subtler level it might negate, for example, the
attitude of a Zen practitioner who studied an ancient Zen text with a
view to shaming those who, via the mirror principle, he fearfully saw
as “the other.” “The other”
in that case, might be a Buddhist scholar who studied a Zen text
intellectually but did not practise sitting-Zen. Or “the other”
might be a fake Zen elephant – a bluffer– who garnered fame and
position by pretending...

You've
got a lot of nerve To say you are my friend. When I was
down you just stood there grinning. You've
got a lot of nerve To say you've got a helping hand to lend. You
just want to be on the side that's winning....

You
see me on the street. You always act surprised. You say,
how are you, good luck, but you don't mean it. When you know as
well as me, You'd rather see me paralyzed Why don't you
just come out once and scream it?

Among
many strong lyrics that Bob Dylan wrote in his younger years, the
strongest to my mind are the above lyrics. Equally, a phrase of Bob's
that sticks in the mind is the one delivered at that moment in
Manchester when a lover of acoustic guitar shouted from the audience,
“Judas!” and Bob, after a moment of consideration, shouted back
“I don't believe you. You are a liar.”

In
similar vein, Marjory Barlow once memorably said to me after an
Alexander lesson, “It has to be real.”

The
2nd pāda, and the relation between the 1st and 2nd pādas, has to be
understood in that light. It is not about pursuing, or expecting, the
wisdom that is kindness. It is not even about aspiring to such
wisdom. It is not about trying to be like the Dalai Lama. It is
about, in the first instance, not being a grasping, striving
hypocrite.

What
is negated by the na in the 1st pāda is striving, or expectation of a result,
or both – adhyaiṣṭa can be understood as the 3rd pers. sg.
imperfect of adhi-√iṣ: to seek or strive after, or as the 3rd
pers. sg. aorist of adhi-√ikṣ: to expect.

The
verb at the end of the 2nd pada, adhyagīṣṭa, is from adhi-√gā,
which means to go over, to learn, to study.

Both
the √iṣ of adhi-√iṣ and the √gā of adhi-√gā have a
connotation of seeking after or pursuing. So at first glance vidyām
adhi-√iṣ (to seek learning) and adhi-√gā (to study) mean
much the same thing.

Hence
EBC: “He sought not learning to vex another; such knowledge as was
beneficent, that only he studied;” EHJ: “He did not learn
science to cause suffering to others but studied only the knowledge
that was beneficent;" and PO "He did not acquire learning to hurt other men; he mastered the knowledge that was beneficial."

Influenced
by these translations, and mindful of the fact that the √gā of
adhi-√gā means “to go after or pursue,” my first effort to to
translate the first two pādas was:

“He
did not seek learning for the sorrow of the other, but pursued the
wisdom that is kind.”

I
reasoned that “pursue” has more of a connotation of physical
effort, or of effort with the whole body-mind, than “seek
knowledge/learning” and so “pursue” was suitable for the 2nd of
four pādas.

But
as I sat beneath the stars on Monday night, coming back to the most
fundamental teaching of the Buddha – not doing wrong, allowing the
right thing to grow by itself – and reflected what today's verse is
really all about, I realized that “pursued” did not fit.

As
I sat reflecting beneath the stars I thought of the kind of Buddhist
hypocrite who Dylan might have been addressing in his song – the
kind of detestable character who I could easily use as a mirror in
which to see the person I don't wish to be (but fear I might be).
That Buddhist hypocrite is just the kind of spiritual end-gainer who
would aspire to the wisdom which is kind (jñānaṁ śivam), and who
would pursue it accordingly. That's what happens when the positive
butts in before the negative has cleared the ground, when there is
direction without inhibition.

The
order of elements in today's verse is not like that. Rather the verse
is written in accordance with the most fundamental teaching of the
Buddha, namely, first do no wrong. Not doing wrong is expressed in
the 1st pāda. Then, wrong not being done, the right thing is allowed
to do itself -- like wisdom seeping in.

To
pursue the right thing (paraphrasing Dogen) is delusion. But when the
right thing is allowed to do itself, that might be when real wisdom seeps in.

Having
established that I had gone off track with “pursued,” I went
back to the dictionary and took notice of something important that I
had neglected, which is that adhyagīṣṭa is in the middle voice(ātmanepada)
– which it is to say, it is occupying the middle ground between active and passive.

Once
it is recognized that adhyagīṣṭa is as much passive as
it active, that opens the way to some
interesting variations:

“But
that wisdom which is kind, he was learned by.”

"But
that wisdom which is kind, he was penetrated by.”

"But that wisdom which is kindness, he was mastered by.”

In
the effort to bring it back more towards the middle, I ended up with

“But
in that wisdom which is kindness, he became learned.”

And
finally “But he was steeped in that wisdom which is kindness.”

Thus, buried in what at first glance appears to be a fairly inconsequential
description of the Buddha's father's virtuous attitude
towards science/knowledge/learning, is Aśvaghoṣa's subtle and
indirect preaching of the principle at the very heart of the Buddha's
enlightenment – namely, not doing wrong, letting it do it.

Why
does Aśvaghoṣa, as he did in Saundara-nanda, use the Buddha's
father as such a mirror of enlightened behaviour? I think because the Buddha's father, as a
non-Buddhist, or pre-Buddhist, represents virtue which is not
Buddhist virtue but which is universal virtue.

“If
we stop doing the wrong thing, the right thing tends to do itself”
is not a Buddhist principle. It is a universal law, intimately
related with the 2nd law of thermodynamics, on which the
Buddha based his teaching.

The
3rd and 4th pādas feature a word which gives pause for
reflection in many places in Saundara-nanda, and that is prajā,
among whose meanings are offspring and people/subjects. But prajāalso
means the after-growth of plants, and so sarva-prajā seems to carry a
connotation of all offshoots of the human species. But then again
prajā can also mean animal or creature, so perhaps “every offshoot
of the tree of life” might be close to the intended meaning.

Any
way up, I think the point is that the king is being portrayed as one
who when he wished everybody all the best, really did mean it -- he wished the best for
all living beings connected together on the tree of life, and not
some subset thereof. And if that sounds like a nice state to be in,
trying to be like that is always a mistake, the essence of delusion.

Trying
to be like anything is not a good place to start. The best place to
start, in an activity like sitting-meditation, on the contrary, might
be to stop trying.